4.  The applicant was born in 1936 and lives in the town of Karmėlava, Kaunas region.
5.  On 4 February 1994 the applicant loaned 6,000 Lithuanian litai (LTL, approximately 1,740 euros (EUR)) to a private enterprise. Given that in the following months the enterprise failed to fulfil its obligations under the agreement, the applicant sued it.
6.  On 15 June 1994 the Kaunas City District Court granted the claim and awarded the applicant the amount of the loan plus interest, amounting to LTL 8,400 (approximately EUR 2,435). The court decision was sent to the bailiff for execution. However, on 17 December 1996 the bailiff returned the execution order to the applicant, stating that there was no property against which the execution of the decision could be carried out.
7.  On 28 November 1994 a pre-trial investigation was opened.
8.  On 13 March 1995 the applicant was recognized as a victim and civil claimant in that criminal case.
9.  On 2 May 1996 and 3 June 1996 criminal charges were brought against two persons, a director of the enterprise and its shareholder, on suspicion of a fraud and violation of the laws regulating monetary operations.
10.  On 20 January 1997 the Kaunas City District Court examined the case and returned it for further investigation. The court established that various procedural requirements had been violated.
11. On 16 June 1999 the bill of indictment was issued again.
12.  On 31 May 2001 the Kaunas City District Court convicted the accused and granted the applicant’s civil claim in the sum of LTL 8,400.
13.  On 15 November 2001 the Kaunas Regional Court remitted the case, stating that the lower court had not examined the case thoroughly, had made a number of procedural errors and had not reasoned its decision sufficiently.
14.  On 12 January 2004 the Kaunas City District Court re-examined the case and again convicted the accused and granted the applicant’s civil claim in the sum of LTL 8,400.
15.  On 9 June 2004 the Kaunas Regional Court ordered a further expert report as the lower court had failed to put all the relevant questions to the experts.
16.  On 13 April 2005 the Kaunas Regional Court annulled the decision of the first-instance court and terminated the case against the accused due to the expiration of the statutory time-limit. Subsequently the civil claim by the applicant was left unexamined.
17.  On 11 October 2005 the Supreme Court dismissed a cassation appeal lodged by the applicant, who was present at the hearing. The court stated, nonetheless, that the applicant had a right to bring a separate civil claim and concluded that, although the statutory time-limit for such a claim had expired, the delay was partially attributable to the State itself, thus the time-limit for the claim had to be restored.
18.  The Court has no information that the applicant had ever lodged such separate civil claim against the successor of the enterprise or other persons.
19.  The applicant lodged a separate civil claim for damages alleging the unreasonable length of the criminal proceedings that was caused by the domestic courts. He invoked Article 6.272 § 1 of the Civil Code and claimed the sum of LTL 151,212 (approximately EUR 43,800), comprising the debt of the enterprise plus interest for the whole period, taking into account inflation, and an award for non-pecuniary damage as well as cost for legal expenses.
20.  On 10 May 2005 the Kaunas Regional Court dismissed that claim, having established no illegal actions by the State institutions. On 11 October 2005 the Court of Appeal upheld the decision of the lower court. On 4 January 2006 the Supreme Court refused to entertain the cassation appeal lodged by the applicant as raising no important legal issues.